I'm like the guy who says, "Hey wanna come over and see the slides of my vacation?" Always be bush;)
I had a colleague of mine, known as "the scholar," review my Scoop article before I submitted it. He
had some excellent points, stated in unambiguous language.
:sarcasm:
Since I'm in the sway of a powerful guru, like the rest of the"do nothing but election fraud research" folks, I immediately obeyed and wrote a different final section.
These meandering words were excluded. Now that mod mom has given me 1/2 a chance, I'm inlcuding them.
Excluded (by me) from
"Scoop" Article "Scoop" Print version of article With friends like these who needs Republicans
Salon positions itself as an electronic mix of Atlantic, Harpers, and Vanity Fair. It has everything including insightful investigative reporting on issues vital to the highly educated knowledge workers it so desires as readers. Yet on the most critical domestic issue of its short history, Salon gives us Farhad Manjoo, their ace
Staff Writer for Technology and Business (as he’s described). Salon joins the proud tradition of that more openly leftist publication for social justice, Mother Jones. In both cases, the publications allowed the presentation of articles filled with simply dreadful reasoning and argumentation. The most obvious example is the guilt by false association argument both authors and the journals that they represent use to tie prominent critics of the 2004 election to what are by their assertion only claimed by
fringe leftist groups. Manjoo apparently missed
this survey which found that a majority of Pennsylvania Democrats and independents think the 2004 election was stolen. Talk about a circular firing squad. With publications of the left like these, who needs a right wing?
Salon’s editor Joan Walsh had the unenviable task of writing the defense of the publication and Manjoo.
She said, “But with people denouncing Manjoo, and Salon, as pawns of Karl Rove, it's worth taking a minute to place this debate in its proper political context.” Just a moment Ms. Walsh. You don’t get off that easy. No appeals to the sympathy vote (after all, who wants to be compared to Rove lately?). I do not consent. Your writer relies on not-so-clever rhetorical tricks; veiled implications of a negative sort; purports to reason without any logical basis; chooses sources with an obvious bias; asserts without sources; and ignores a mass of evidence that might contradict his claim.
How on earth does it benefit us to just get over it, move on to more important tasks and other catch phrases advanced by the deniers of fraud when the very ability to move forward relies on knowing the truth about our very recent calamitous history and preventing any more highly questionable, likely stolen, elections from taking place.
As an example Ms. Walsh, if your home had been virtually destroyed by vandals in November 2004 and those vandals were still on the loose with a grudge, would you want to simply forget it? Would that be something you should just get over, move on, forget?
To argue that yes there are issues of election integrity without facing the facts about election fraud is the height of absurdity. To give us analysis like that offered by supposed friends of the left side of the political divide is journalistic malfeasance. There is no law against it nor should there be but please do not whine to us about your angry readers when they mistake your obvious ineptitude and limitations in any type of reasoning, critical or otherwise, for a more nefarious motive. A bit of generosity is in order. Both Salon and Mother Jones lack the ability to analyze anything more important than a recipe book; as opposed to creating the conditions of ignorance leading to a recipe for disaster, which seems to be their current task.
END
www.ElectionFraudNews.com